1 2025:CGHC:13286-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 30 of 2021 1 - Tuleshwar Singh S/o Dhobi Ram Aged About 32 Years 2 - Dhobi Singh S/o Late Dani Ram Aged About 60 Years All R/o Village Taraju, Police Station Lakhanpur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh ... Appellants versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, District Surguja Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Appellants : Mr.Hemant Kumar Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent : Mr.Nitansh Jaiswal, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice and Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 20/03/2025 1. This criminal appeal preferred under Section 374(2) of the CrPC is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.12.2020 passed by learned First Additional BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2025.03.21 17:06:33 +0530 2 Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, District Surguja in Sessions Case No.29/2019, by which the appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 302/34 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of 10,000/-, in ₹ default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that complainant Kameshwar Ram S/o Ramnath reached Police Station Lakhanpur on 26.11.2018 at 13.40 P.M. and informed that he lives in village Taraju. His parents live in Naya Ghar Kawarpara and come to his house for meals. He had a land dispute with Dhobi Ram for two years due to which Dhobi Ram always kept talking about murder. On 26.11.2018 at 11.30 A.M., his parents were going from his house to Naya Ghar Kawarpara, when appellant Tuleshwar cut him below the jaw with axe in his hand and Dhobi Ram assaulted him with stick. Thus, Ramnath has been murdered by the appellants. On the basis of the above information, dehati nalashi (Ex.P-4) was registered at Police Station Lakhanpur. On 26.11.2018, FIR No.208/2018 under Section 302/34 of the IPC (Ex.P-17) was registered against the appellants. During investigation, bloodstained and plain soil were recovered from the spot vide Ex.P-2. Dehati nalashi intimation was registered vide Ex.P-6. Inquest was prepared over the body of the deceased vide Ex.P-8. Spot map was prepared by the patwari vide Ex.P-9. Memorandum statement of appellant Dhobi Ram was recorded 3 vide Ex.P-13 and on the basis of his memorandum statement, stick was seized at his instance vide Ex.P-10. Memorandum statement of appellant Tuleshwar Singh Kunwar was recorded vide Ex.P-14 and on the basis of his memorandum statement, axe stains with blood was recovered at his instance vide Ex.P-12. The appellants were arrested on 27.11.2018 vide arrest memos (Exs.P-15 and P-16. The investigating officer also prepared the spot map vide Ex.P-19. Dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem to Community Health Center, Lakhanpur vide Ex.P- 21, where Dr.Geeta Paikra (PW-15) conducted postmortem over the body of the deceased and found following injuries:- “Lacerated wound over upper neck at base of mandible, spindle shape with clotted blood, size 10x5cm, with mandible bone exposed with multiple fracture with transect of trachea, thyroid cartilage, esophagus with major vessels of neck. Lacerated wound over left side fore head oblique size 3x1cm & left fronto parietal oblique size 5x1cm with clotted blood. Skull bone not exposed.” The doctor has opined that cause of death was due to transect of trachea and nature of death was homicidal. Bloodstained soil, gamcha, axe and stick were sent to FSL for chemical examination and as per FSL report (Ex.P-25), blood was found on Article A soil, 4 Article C gamcha, Article D axe and Article E stick seized from the appellants. 3. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC. After usual investigation, the accused / appellants were charge-sheeted for offence under Section 302/34 of the IPC and charge-sheet was filed before the jurisdictional criminal Court, who in turn, committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Ambikapur Surguja, from where the First Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur received the case on transfer for trial in accordance with law. 4. The accused / appellants abjured the guilt and entered into witness. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses and exhibited 25 documents. The defence has examined none and no document has been exhibited. 5. The trial Court upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record and considering that it is the appellants who have caused the murder of the deceased, proceeded to convict and sentence them under Section 302/34 of the IPC in the manner mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment against which the instant appeal under Section 374(2) of the CrPC has been preferred. 6. Mr.Hemant Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellants submits that conviction of the appellants is bad, illegal and 5 improper because learned trial Court has erred in considering the statements of the witnesses. He further submits that the prosecution has failed to prove the motive or intention to commit the alleged crime. The finding of the trial Court itself was perverse since there are many contradictions in the statements of the witnesses regarding incident and procedure adopted by the police. Having reached in this finding, conviction of the appellants is bad in the eye of law. He also submits that the prosecution has also not proved the other circumstances. The story was doubtful looking to the evidence recorded. As such, the criminal appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside. 7. On the other hand, Mr.Nitansh Jaiswal, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondent/State, supports the impugned judgment and submits that statements of Mulki Bai (PW-3), Kameshwar (PW-4) and Jugeshwari (PW-6) are wholly reliable and trustworthy as their testimonies inspire confidence. He further submits that the appellants have rightly been convicted by the trial Court and as such, the criminal appeal deserves to be dismissed. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the original records of the trial Court with utmost circumspection and carefully as well. 6 9. The first question for consideration would be, whether the trial Court was justified in holding that death of deceased Ramnath was homicidal in nature ? 10. The trial Court relying upon the statement of Dr.Geeta Paikra (PW-15), who has conducted postmortem on the body of deceased Ramnath vide Ex.P-21A, has clearly come to the conclusion that death of deceased Ramnath was homicidal in nature. The said finding recorded by the trial Court is a finding of fact based on evidence available on record, which is neither perverse nor contrary to record. Even otherwise, it has not been seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant. We hereby affirm the said finding. 11. The next question is that the appellants have been convicted on the testimonies of eyewitnesses Mulki Bai (PW-3), Kameshwar (PW-4) and Jugeshwari (PW-6), whether testimonies of these witnesses should be relied upon to base conviction unless it is corroborated by other appropriate valid piece of evidence. 12. Mulki Bai (PW-3) has stated in para 1 of her examination-in-chief that this year her husband was killed during the paddy harvesting. On the date of incident, her sons and daughter-in-laws live in another house where she and her husband were returning from their old house after having food at around 11 A.M. On the way, appellants Dhobi and Tul were at some distance from her house and were following her and her husband. Then suddenly appellant 7 Dhobi started assaulting her husband’s leg with stick and after that Tul also started assaulting her husband with axe. Appellant Tul assaulted her husband’s chest and shoulder with axe, due to which her husband fell down on the spot and she started crying and at the same time she started shouting to call her son and daughter-in-law and after some time they came to the spot. By the time her sons and daughter-in-laws came to the spot and the appellants have killed her husband and fled. 13. Kameshwar (PW-4) has stated in para 2 of his examination-in- chief that her father Ramnath has been murdered. The incident happened about seven months ago. His father had been murdered by the appellants. His father was murdered while returning from his house to his new house after having food in his old house in village Taraju. At the time when his father was murdered by the appellants, his mother Mulki and his father were going together after having food, then his father was murdered by the appellants on the way. In para 3, he has stated that at the time of incident, he had gone to his field to harvest paddy. When his mother raised an alarm, he, his wife Jugeshwari, his brother Jailal and other family members came to the spot, then they saw that the appellants were assaulting his father. 14. Jugeshwari (PW-6) has stated in para 1 of his examination-in- chief that the incident took place last year during the paddy harvesting season. She know deceased Ramnath, he was her father-in-law. Her father-in-law Ramnath has been killed by 8 appellants Tuleshwar and Dhobi. There was a dispute between appellants Dhobi and Tuleshwar and their family over the land, due to which appellant Tuleshwar killed her father-in-law Ramnath with axe and Dhobi killed him with stick. In para 3, she has stated that her husband Kameshwar has seen the incident. The incident took place around 10-11 o’clock. Her mother-in-law and father-in- law came to their house to eat and then after eating her mother- in-law and father-in-law were going to their new house. At the same time, the incident took place in front of her father-in-law’s new house and her brother-in-law Jailal and her sister-in-law Ram Bai have also seen the incident. 15. In criminal cases, the credibility of witnesses, particularly those who are close relatives of the deceased, is often scrutinized. However, being a relative does not automatically render a witness "interested" or biased. The term "interested" refers to witnesses who have a personal stake in the outcome, such as a desire for revenge or to falsely implicate the accused due to enmity or personal gain. A "related" witness, on the other hand, is someone who may be naturally present at the scene of the crime, and their testimony should not be dismissed simply because of their relationship to the deceased. Courts must assess the reliability, consistency, and coherence of their statements rather than labelling them as untrustworthy. 16. The distinction between "interested" and "related" witnesses has 9 been clarified in Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab, 1954 SCR 1453, where the Supreme Court emphasized that a close relative is usually the last person to falsely implicate an innocent person. Therefore, in evaluating the evidence of a related witness, the court should focus on the consistency and credibility of their testimony. This approach ensures that the evidence is not discarded merely due to familial ties, but is instead assessed based on its inherent reliability and consistency with other evidence in the case. 17. Thus, it is clear that the evidence of a “related witness” cannot be discarded only on the ground of relationship. On the contrary, why a “related witness” would spare the real culprit in order to falsely implicate some innocent person? There is a difference between “related witness” and “interested witness”. “Interested witness” is a witness who is vitally interested in conviction of a person due to previous enmity. The “Interested witness” has been defined by the Supreme Court in the matter of Mohd. Rojali Ali v. State of Assam, reported in (2019) 19 SCC 567 as under : “13. As regards the contention that all the eyewitnesses are close relatives of the deceased, it is by now well- settled that a related witness cannot be said to be an “interested” witness merely by virtue of being a relative of the victim. This Court has elucidated the difference between “interested” and “related” witnesses in a plethora of cases, stating that a witness may be called interested only when he or she derives some benefit from the result of a litigation, which in the context of a 10 criminal case would mean that the witness has a direct or indirect interest in seeing the accused punished due to prior enmity or other reasons, and thus has a motive to falsely implicate the accused (for instance, see State of Rajasthan v. Kalki; Amit v. State of U.P.; and Gangabhavani v. Rayapati Venkat Reddy). Recently, this difference was reiterated in Ganapathi v. State of T.N., in the following terms, by referring to the three-Judge Bench decision in State of Rajasthan v. Kalki: (Ganapathi case, SCC p. 555, para 14) “14. “Related” is not equivalent to “interested”. A witness may be called “interested” only when he or she derives some benefit from the result of a litigation; in the decree in a civil case, or in seeing an accused person punished. A witness who is a natural one and is the only possible eyewitness in the circumstances of a case cannot be said to be “interested”.” 14. In criminal cases, it is often the case that the offence is witnessed by a close relative of the victim, whose presence on the scene of the offence would be natural. The evidence of such a witness cannot automatically be discarded by labelling the witness as interested. Indeed, one of the earliest statements with respect to interested witnesses in criminal cases was made by this Court in Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab, wherein this Court observed: (AIR p. 366, para 26) “26. A witness is normally to be considered independent unless he or she springs from sources which are likely to be tainted and that usually means unless the witness has cause, such as enmity against the accused, to wish to implicate 11 him falsely. Ordinarily a close relative would be the last to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person.” 15. In case of a related witness, the Court may not treat his or her testimony as inherently tainted, and needs to ensure only that the evidence is inherently reliable, probable, cogent and consistent. We may refer to the observations of this Court in Jayabalan v. State (UT of Pondicherry): (SCC p. 213, para 23) “23. We are of the considered view that in cases where the court is called upon to deal with the evidence of the interested witnesses, the approach of the court, while appreciating the evidence of such witnesses must not be pedantic. The court must be cautious in appreciating and accepting the evidence given by the interested witnesses but the court must not be suspicious of such evidence. The primary endeavour of the court must be to look for consistency. The evidence of a witness cannot be ignored or thrown out solely because it comes from the mouth of a person who is closely related to the victim.” 18. Though the eyewitnesses who have been examined in the present case were closely related to the deceased, namely his wife Mulki (PW-3), his son Kameshwar (PW-4) and and daughter-in-law Jugeshwari (PW-6), their testimonies are consistent with respect to the accused persons being the assailants who inflicted wounds on the deceased. As is revealed from the sequence of events that transpired, one of the family members was subjected to an assault. It was thus quite natural for other family members to rush 12 on the spot to intervene. The presence of the family members on the spot and thus being eyewitness has been well established. In such circumstances, merely because the eyewitnesses are family members, their testimonies cannot be discarded solely on that ground. 19. As far as the motive of the appellants for killing Ramnath is concerned, witnesses Ramabai (PW-1), Jugeshwari (PW-6) and Jailal (PW-7) have stated that there was a quarrel between the appellants and deceased Ramnath over farming. This statement of the witnesses has remained uncontested. Thus, it appears that both the appellants had a grudge against deceased Ramnath. Therefore, the motive of the appellants for committing the crime is also proved. 20. Considering the statements of the eyewitnesses Mulki Bai (PW-3), Kameshwar (PW-4) and Jugeshwari (PW-6), evidence of Dr.Geeta Paikra (PW-15), her autopsy report (Ex.P-21A), further considering the material available on record and also considering the finding recorded by the trial Court, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellants for offence under Section 302/34 of the IPC. We do not find any illegality or irregularity in the findings recorded by the trial Court. 21. For the foregoing reasons, the criminal appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 13 22. It is stated at the Bar that the the appellants are in jail since 27.11.2018, they shall serve out the sentence as ordered by learned trial Court. 23. Let a copy of this judgment and the original record be transmitted to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. 24. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is undergoing his jail term, to serve the same on the appellant informing him that he is at liberty to assail the present judgment passed by this Court by preferring an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court with the assistance of the High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu